Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gay flag.svg WikiProject LGBT studies:
Ambox important.svg New articles with LGBT keywords (click "show" to view)
This list, produced by a bot, identified the following articles as possibly being within the scope of this project. Please add {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} to appropriate articles. The raw list is here and articles are removed after a week whether tagged or not.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2017-04-25 20:06 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.















WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject
LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
Members
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Persons)
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Recognized content
Portals we help maintain
Portal LGBT.svg LGBT portal
Portal Transgender.svg Transgender portal
edit · changes

Contents

LGBT protests against Donald Trump[edit]

I created the article LGBT protests against Donald Trump, if any project members want to help expand. There are more sources and events to research on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Another Believer: Will you create Gays for Trump too?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
And why does it say, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."? Who added this restriction?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Can I ask, User:Zigzig20s, why would that be User:Another Believer's responsibility? I see s/he has in fact done so, but it's a peculiar request, unless I'm missing an inside joke or something. freshacconci (✉) 21:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I am heading to bed, but I created a quick stub at Gays for Trump. Where are you seeing this text you posted? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec)That is WP:1RR, typically imposed by ARBCOM. I suspect it is considered related to the Tea Party. LadyofShalott 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
But who imposed this restriction, which has a chilling effect? Or is it automatic?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The Gays for Trump has the same restriction. This is ridiculous. Is this on all Trump-related articles? This is too much.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I imposed it. Direct your angst here. El_C 05:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
OK what for? The page was just created and this has a chilling effect.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
To nip edit warring in the bud. I don't see why it should have a chilling effect at all. If anything, it should motivate more discussion, and less reverting. El_C 05:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Has there been a single instance of edit warring in this article? This is premature. These restrictions definitely have a chilling effect, because they create a sense of fear and unease. Can you please remove it and think twice before you impose such discretionary sanctions?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a negative. I'm not gonna wait to add those later, best that editors know the discretionary sanctions are in effect from the outset. If you don't edit war you have nothing to fear. You don't fear a speed limit sign, do you? Well, that's what it is. El_C 05:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Why do you anticipate there will be edit-warring? And we've discussed at WikiProject Editor Retention and here how many of us LGBT editors do not feel comfortable with the power dynamics of some admins. Anyway, this is discouraging.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry you feel discouraged, truly. The aim was to informs editors that this is a heated issue with special rules of editing attached to it. El_C 06:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to single these two articles out or anything—I've added tens and tens of similar pagenotices to articles today alone. This is just something the Arbitration Committee has recently mandated which as admins we are obligated to implement. El_C 06:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Why?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
To inform editors of the editing restrictions. For disputes to be discussed on the talk page rather than escalated as edit wars. El_C 08:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Was this discussed anywhere at all, or was it an arbitrary decision made by a dozen people?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It was discussed at length at the American politics 2 Arbitration Request. El_C 08:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@El C: In the Arbitration case of 20 months ago, it was concluded that WP:standard discretionary sanctions applies, nothing else. It should be noted that the American politics Arbcom case mentioned LGBT issues or Trump related disputes zero times, as they were not a locus of dispute in that case. Referring to WP:standard discretionary sanctions, the section on Expectations, there is a requirement that "The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion." This article has had no editor severely or persistently causing disruption, so the 1RR restriction is unnecessarily chilling and hampers our collegiate aim to improve the quality of LGBT related articles. Please remove the restriction as unnecessary and not placed in compliance with the Arbcom procedure, in this case obviously not in compliance as there has only been one editor. Please do not replace the restriction unless in the context of sufficient disruption in the article to warrant action. Thanks -- (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course the restrictions imposed on American politics articles apply to this article too, and editors need to be warned that they exist otherwise they may unknowingly fall foul of them. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, they are not intended to prevent free and candid discussion. And I hope they don't in this case. But how else are editors expected to be made privy to them? Again, concerns about just these two articles are a bit parochial. As mentioned, I've been doing this in tens and tens of articles: you can see the scope of the ARBPIA (if not the IP and AP) ones in my protection log, where every articles protected also corresponds to a pagenotice added. My approach to the page notice is preventative. But ultimately, I don't see the harm in editors being cautioned about a set of articles that a Wikipedia elected body has deemed controversial due to whatever reasons. The tag is there for the protection of the article and the editors involved—look at it like a special 25km/h reduced speed limit in a residential area. All it is is a speed sign. El_C 23:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Life is controversial. Let us live, let us breathe.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Having been branded an advocate, I avoid toxic subjects, it's not worth the hassle or risk of crossing some slightly arbitrary line based on one admin's personal judgment. Stamping a new LGBT article with no history of dispute with a 1RR makes it toxic, and will put off new or sensibly cautious editors. -- (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that. It is only pointing out to potential editors that the procedures for editing that article will be a little bit different compared to editing article's outside that subject area. Problem issues connected to the actual wording of the warning, or how admins interpret them, are not specific to just this article. I think the consensus required clause is a gift to obstructionists and a sustainer of I-just-don't-like-it arguments. But the way to resolve this would be to get the remedies amended. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully, the notice will make disputes less likely to impact the article and more likely to be resolved on the talk page. On the contrary, I hope cautious editors see it as a safer space to edit. The consensus provision is currently subject clarification on the ARBPIA front, although there is also US Politics one as well. El_C 21:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the notice is making it less likely for this article to be expanded. That's all it's doing. There has been no dispute. The article from The Advocate where Gays for Trump is mentioned for example, remains on google, and has failed to be in-lined as a reliable third-party source for expansion.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Are there any other editors who wanted to contribute to the articles but decided not to because of the notices? Nothing is set in stone. El_C 22:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Trump presidency[edit]

I also invite project members to participate in this discussion about whether or not the LGBT protests against Donald Trump article belongs in the navigation box Template:Trump presidency. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if we include pro-Trump support from the LGBTQ community too! We are real human beings--not a dehumanized fundraising campaign for the Democrats.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: I encourage you to leave your comments on the template talk page so other editors can read your opinion. I'm more of an inclusionist when it comes to navigation boxes, but another editor thinks even having LGBT protests against Donald Trump included is inappropriate for now (because of its stub status). We need more editors to participate in this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I did.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge? LGBT protests against Donald Trump[edit]

User:JFG redirected LGBT protests against Donald Trump to the parent Timeline of protests against Donald Trump, which I strongly oppose. Yes, the LGBT protests article is incomplete, but this could easily be expanded to include several other large demonstrations, not to mention other forms of LGBT protest (see the talk page re: Ellen DeGeneres). Additionally, the Timeline of protests against Donald Trump article is already too long, and is only going to get longer throughout Trump's tenure. I'd like other project members to weigh in on this disagreement, thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The article mentioned only 3 local protests that occurred on February 2–4 in the wake of the backlash against Executive Order 13769. Nothing happened since then, and I haven't seen any RS mention a significant wave of LGBT-specific protests against Donald Trump. Therefore, the merge was justified; I preserved 85% of the contents. If and when massive protests happen, they can be documented at that time. — JFG talk 21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Congrats on preserving the majority of an incomplete article, but we should be discussing the appropriateness of a complete LGBT protests against Donald Trump article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It's very simple: there's nothing to complete Face-smile.svg (unless something big escaped me since February). — JFG talk 21:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Clearly you've not done much research. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I support the redirect, and I think it should be restored. The problem with a title like "LGBT protests against Donald Trump" is that it suggests the LGBT community is against Trump. That is not the case. There are Gays for Trump and many others who simply do not agree with these protesters. So a redirect with a mention of specific anti-Trump protesters who happen to be LGBT in the main protest article seems appropriate. Or, you could rename it, "Some LGBT protests against Donald Trump."Zigzig20s (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The title suggests no such thing, any more than the title Gays for Trump suggests that the gay community is in support of Trump. Funcrunch (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Sorry, but no, the title "LGBT protests against Donald Trump" does not suggest that the LGBT community is against Trump. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
This redirect should not have been made without discussing it first. That said, I am not entirely sure the subject merits a separate article at this time. I do agree that Timeline of protests against Donald Trump is quite long, just not sure there have been enough LGBT-specific protests to justify a separate article. Funcrunch (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Why is there gays for trump article anyway? Isn't there a trump supporters page? CTF83! 22:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Two comments: 1) There have been several notable LGBT protests. I'll see if I can revisit the article after I finish expanding the People's Climate March (2017) article, which JFG also nominated for deletion unnecessarily. 2) I'm starting to notice patterns re: how people are voting... sometimes seemingly based more on political ideology than policy. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Why can't the LGBT protest page be a section in Protests against Donald Trump? CTF83! 22:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@CTF83!: The Gays for Trump page exists because User:Zigzig20s specifically asked for it to be created in response to the LGBT protests against Donald Trump article. User:Another Believer did so, and to date Zigzig20s has only edited Gays for Trump once (and that article is no more developed than the one on LGBT protests). Funcrunch (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, because some of us are scared of the (unnecessary?) arbitrary sanctions. We've discussed this before.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Can't it just be a section in the broader protest page? CTF83! 23:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: The arb sanctions apply to all articles in that category, not just Gays for Trump, and the warning notice on the edit page was removed. Funcrunch (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It's still on the talkpage, "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES". User:Fæ asked for it to be removed as it has a chilling effect for LGBT editors (maybe not you, but then you could expand it). It should come as no surprise that I have not expanded the article, given this context.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The same warning is still on the talk page of LGBT protests against Donald Trump as well. Yes, you and one other editor recommended to El_C that the warning be removed (though the sanctions apply regardless). Interested editors can read the discussion in the parent section for context. My point: If you want coverage of people from the LGBT community supporting Trump, maybe you should be creating or contributing to articles on that topic, rather than trying to prevent the creation or expansion of articles about people from the LGBT community who do not support Trump. Funcrunch (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The sanctions should be removed for all political articles; they have an unnecessary chilling effect on editing. I'm not trying to prevent anything, just expressing concerns over potentialities of undue weight and bias.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Well the sanctions issue is not going to be decided by this WikiProject, so that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. As far as weight and bias, you have been determined through your repeated posts on this WikiProject to point out that some people in the LGBT community support Trump. We get it. No editor here has implied or suggested that every single individual who is L, G, B, T, or Q voted against, does not support, or is actively protesting Donald Trump. Your repeated calls for more recognition of LGBT Trump supporters are frankly creating a "chilling effect" of their own, at least on my willingness to continue participating in this project. Funcrunch (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel this way. We can and should be able to work together, especially as RS-based content is what matters here. Just don't call me out for not expanding Gays for Trump when you know why I/we haven't.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@CTF83!: Yes, moving the contents to a section is the way to go, unless LGBT-specific protests escalate to deserve a full-fledged article. I don't see this happening at this time, as we had only reports of a few protests in early February. The timeline article looked like the best place to insert them, and I didn't think that would be controversial. — JFG talk 23:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I say pull the trigger! CTF83! 03:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
So, let me wrap my mind around this: Gays for Trump doesn't imply that all gays are for trump, but LGBT protests against Donald Trump somehow does imply that the entire LGBT community is against him?—one gets to stay an article, while the other doesn't? In what universe is this fair and balanced? El_C 05:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a matter of syntax. Gays for Trump does not imply that all gays are for Trump. LGBT protests implies that there are no LGBT non-protests.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
What is a non-protest? I'm confused. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't get the disparity. El_C 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
A lack of protest. In other words, some members of the LGBT community are not protesting Trump at all. Part of the problem is that we are using the umbrella term "LGBT community," even though the reality is that some in the LGBT community protest Trump, and some in the LGBT community do not protest Trump. We don't have the same problem with "Gays for Trump" because it is the name of an organization. If there was an organization called "LGBT community protesting Trump", we wouldn't have this problem.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, that only becomes clear upon reading the article (for both)—the issue is about the titles per se., in isolation, intimating something I just don't find to be pressing. It is unbalanced to keep the pro-Trump article but redirect the anti-Trump one. El_C 15:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings El_C! I was approaching this situation from the "Protests against Donald Trump" angle, and noticed that the LGBT protests mentioned were minor one-shot events compared to the tsunami of Trump protests, therefore they didn't deserve a dedicated article, so I merged the stub and redirected to the timeline article. I understand the perceived imbalance if you approach this from the "what do LGBT people think of Trump" angle, however we could say the same of "what do vegetarians think of Trump" or "what do football fans think of Trump", i.e. your sexual orientation is not a strong predictor of your political opinion. Personally I would say the "Gays for Trump" article lacks notability and could be merged somewhere or challenged at AfD; however keeping it does no harm either. — JFG talk 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirecting just one of them does not seem fair, in light of the manner in which these articles were created. Equal treatment, please. El_C 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to merge Gays for Trump into March 4 Trump for example, if there's consensus. Any better target idea? — JFG talk 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there's already an edit request connecting March 4 Trump with Gays for Trump, so I guess that's the way to go. — JFG talk 17:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. The March 4 Trump included all sorts of people, not just gays. It was also only a one-off, while the organization is permanent.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the merge of March 4 Trump, which is clearly a notable event on its own. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I think JFG's proposal was to merge Gays for Trump into March 4 Trump, not the other way around. Either way, discussion of any possible merger should happen at the talk pages of the articles affected, not just on this WikiProject. Funcrunch (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was intended this way: mentioning the "Gays for Trump" organization within the wider "March 4 Trump" movement of supporters. This would also answer the edit request recently posted on the talk pages of both articles. — JFG talk 07:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: Without getting too much into politics, comparing members of the LGBT community to football fans when assessing political opinions, especially concerning Donald Trump, is pretty disingenuous. (Unless you seriously believe that LGBT+ people are equally as likely to support Donald Trump as cisheterosexual people are.) Funcrunch (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I am just looking for symmetry. If both articles undergo mergers, that's fine with me. El_C 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Funcrunch: I have no preconceived beliefs about the political opinions of any group of people, be they LGBT, vegetarians, football fans or piano players. Neither should anyone assume that arbitrary categories of people will vote for or against a particular politician in a particular country. That was my point. Unless this group self-defines on political lines, e.g. pro-life people or ecologists. In this particular case, I don't know if the American LGBT people are 50/50, 70/30 or 90/10 on one side of the political choice offered last year, but as long as they are not 95/5 or higher, we can't apply political labels on them, and Wikipedia should not make assumptions. Hope this clarifies where I'm coming from. — JFG talk 07:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
And generally (in any country), I hate when politicians claim "ownership" of a group of people among their constituents. THAT is disingenuous. — JFG talk 07:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: LGBT+ people as a group are not an arbitrary category equivalent to the others you've mentioned. In recent years in the U.S., the majority of LGBT people have consistently been in favor of the Democratic Party, which bills itself as on the left or liberal side of the spectrum. (Here's one source, I could find plenty more.) This does not mean or imply that every individual LGBT person feels or votes this way (as I noted upthread, though that really should go without saying), nor does it imply that any politician or political group "owns" anyone's vote. I'm not sure why you state that Wikipedia would require evidence that 95% of LGBT people are left-leaning, but I'm not asking for a specific label, just common sense here. (Personal note, since it seems necessary here: I am not a Democrat, and I have not voted for a Democrat - nor Republican - for president in over 20 years.) Funcrunch (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Funcrunch: I appreciate your explanations and I understand that the LGBT community has traditionally been left-leaning, in the US and elsewhere. It is perhaps then all the more surprising that LGBT protests against Trump have remained relatively minor since the election, especially compared to other groups or causes. Anyway, the sourced information on anti-Trump LGBT protests was merged with other anti-Trump events, and there is a proposal to merge the pro-Trump LGBT people with other pro-Trumpers as well. Would you agree to this or would you prefer to expand the relevant articles? — JFG talk 15:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Except that's not true. There have been major LGBT protests against Trump. "LGBT protests against Donald Trump" should not be merged, and I'm hoping to find time to expand the article soon (I've been working on so many other articles lately... I wish there were more hours in the day!) If the article is merged, I'll start another version in the draft space, expand, then move back into the main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@JFG and Another Believer: Though neither article has a ton of sources at present, I do tend toward inclusionism, so I'm in favor of keeping both rather than merging. I'm not committing to expanding either of them myself though. Regardless, this discussion should be held on the talk pages of articles affected (with RfCs if necessary), and not just here in this WikiProject. (I see there is a link to this page from the LGBT protests article, but not on Gays for Trump). Funcrunch (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:National Pride March[edit]

I've created a draft space stub for the National Pride March being planned for Washington, D.C., in June. Feel free to contribute to the draft here: Draft:National Pride March. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It needs a specific title, which includes the nation referred to. -- (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@: Hey, Fæ! What do you propose? Secondary coverage, such as the Out source used in the Wikipedia article, and the event's Twitter page, refer to the event specifically as "National Pride March". Why would we use a different article title here if there is no other Wikipedia article by this name (no disambiguation is needed)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Unless this is established in reliable non-US publications as a common usage, it feels Americanocentric and like carpetbagging to reserve the term for a US national event rather than qualifying the title. When I read the title without preconceptions, I imagined it was going to be about national Pride marches in general (the UK used to have a Pride march, but over time this has turned into a London specific event after so many other cities have separate events, that's the sort of thing that a generic article would explain). -- (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
We can wait for more articles about "National Pride March" in other countries to pop up before changing this article's title. Then, we can turn National Pride March into a disambiguation page and retitle this article as National Pride March (United States). Until a second article under the same name exists, however, there's no reason to disambiguate this article further. ~Mable (chat) 09:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
+1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the article should explain what the point of this march is. If there is already a DC march, what difference does it make to have another march in the same city by another name?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Gays for Trump[edit]

I created a stub for Gays for Trump because of a request made in a section above. However, the article has been marked for deletion. I invite project members to please help expand the article and/or express your thoughts re: deletion on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

And guess why no one has edited/expanded it?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I decided to walk in the fire (or dance to Not-discopop) and edit it by adding two reliable third-party sources. However, I did not expand it. We still live in fear because of the discretionary sanctions. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure folks are refusing to expand the stub, which is only a few days old, or living in "fear" of discretionary sanctions. I'm working on other articles lately, but this is one I might revisit at a later date. Just not a top priority right now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
See thread above.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure who this "we" is that Zigzig20s purports to speak for. Especially since the article was created less than two days ago. Funcrunch (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
At least two editors! It's all in the thread above. Funcrunch, if you want to take a chance, be my guest!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I read the entire thread above before making my comment. I'm not interested in working on that particular article, but it has nothing to do with the sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
At least two of us believe it does!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Whereas the four of us believe that it dosen't. That said, again, if anyone else felt intimidated by the tag, please speak up. Nothing is set in stone. El_C 02:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
There are a gazillion articles that theoretically fall under the rubric of discretionary sanctions, but most of them haven't been tagged because there's been no sign of a problem. Preemptive tagging is unlikely to discourage problem actors from editing, but it might well persuade others not to bother. I can see how inexperienced editors might be intimidated by the tag, although many might not even notice it. (As a newbie, I tended to ignore shaded text boxes at the tops of pages as so much clutter.) I'm not at all intimidated, but if I were to happen across such a tag, it would be a red flag for me: Don't contribute here unless you're willing to get drawn into a stressful situation where power-happy admins (yes, we have a few of those) with questionable judgment and neutrality (and those too) unilaterally use procedural technicalities to thwart productive discussion and impede the addition of policy-compliant content. I might wade in anyway, after checking to see what problems had led to the placement of the tag. If I couldn't find any problems, I'd probably click away in a hurry. (I'm speaking generally here, not about this article specifically. There are certain subject areas I avoid just because they're too depressing in the first place.) RivertorchFIREWATER 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Since there was enough opposition, I've deleted the pagenotices. But the articles remain under Ds, and the pagenotice/s may be re-added. El_C 03:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
To clarify my comments above, I can understand and respect if other editors might be intimidated by the sanctions notice, but the sanctions notice is not the reason that I am choosing not to edit the article. I just didn't like the (to me) vague and presumptive nature of the "we live in fear" comment. Funcrunch (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I (and I'm sure many others) have been under the assumption that "Gays for Trump" was nothing but a twitter account which had been traced back to the IP of a (decidedly heterosexual) Trump supporter. That may be why it gets little attention, and why what attention it has gotten seems to be negative. Having been corrected by this thread and digging into it a bit, I have (admittedly minor) questions about notability in the policy sense, though not in the general sense: I feel like a legitimate LGBT organization formed to support Trump is quite notable by its very nature. But I'm not seeing a whole bunch of third party coverage. I'll keep digging, see if I can find more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
There was talk of voting for Trump after Orlando. Include that in your search. Perhaps someone put something together. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Gender Equality[edit]

Hi all! I'm from Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism and I'm currently trying to edit and fix up some of our top-importance assigned articles. One of those articles is Gender equality as you can see in the lead section my first issue is that the article doesn't want to discuss genders other than male or female to 'avoid complication'. Which is a bit of a red flag for me as a feminist. The second concern is that the page needs a lot of cleanup. It's often the target of class projects, so there's a whole lot of extra historical context being thrown in for every statement. I'm trying to separate that out into a 'notes' section' in order to get a better idea of the bones that we're working with, but I'd like to move the article in the direction of the idea of gender equality - and hopefully away from the binary analysis. If anyone interested in gender-queer, trans, agender or gender-fluid editing would like to pitch in and help I would love to work with you. HelloStarling (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Portland Women March Against Hate[edit]

Project members are invited to participate in the AfD discussion re: Portland Women March Against Hate. I've expressed an interest in moving the article to March Against Hate, and expanding its scope to cover more than just Portland. I welcome editors to either contribute to the ongoing discussion or help expand this article's section for other cities. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My comment was censored. Has this happened before in a WikiProject? Is this still a safe space for LGBT editors, if our comments get censored?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Removing talk page comments that violate WP:NOTFORUM, which I agree that yours did, is not an example of WP:CENSORSHIP. Nor is it evidence of discrimination against LGBT editors. Funcrunch (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not a forum for a (self-described) rant. You've been here long enough to know that. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, does this apply to a WikiProject talkpage like ours? I wouldn't write that comment on an article talkpage, but this is a different setting.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
According to the WikiProject Council, WikiProject talk pages should follow the talk page guidelines. Funcrunch (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Lets take a step back. Perhaps Zigzig20s could express what they want to say about potential left-wing bias in a relaxed and civil way? Thanks -- (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
"The rally began with a performance by the Fallen Angel Choir, who sang "remastered" Christmas carols criticizing Trump and celebrating women and the LGBT community." assumes Trump v. women & LGBT. This is extremely POV-pushing. Perhaps we could rephrase it as "claiming to celebrate women and the LGBT community"?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The current wording in the article conforms to what is said in the source: "The Fallen Angel Choir kicked off the rally with some remastered Christmas carols that made jabs at President-elect Donald Trump and celebrated women and the LGBTQ community." (I also think this discussion would be better held on the article talk page.) Funcrunch (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The event may have been strongly POV, but is the article? We need to describe the event, and its POV, if that's how sources describe it. So long as Wikipedia's voice doesn't have that POV, it's fine. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The event did not celebrate the LGBT community at all. It claimed to celebrate the LGBT community.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
At all? What is the difference? WP:CLAIM—If those participating believe the event to have been celebrating it, they were celebrating it. El_C 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No. I explained that in the redacted comment. They're using the LGBT community as props. They can claim to celebrate us all they want but we can't let them speak for us on Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Zigzig20s, I think you're letting your opinions get in the way of neutrally reporting the facts here. Funcrunch (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I think it would be NPOV to say they are claiming to celebrate us. We are not their pet project; we are real human beings and they don't necessarily speak for us. What they are doing is the definition of paternalism.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
You're saying "they" as if you know there were no LGBT-identified people in this choir or at this rally. Which we don't know because that isn't mentioned in the quoted sources. Regardless, you're just reiterating your opinions and I think this whole discussion is not helping constructively improve the article in any way. Funcrunch (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way. But I am afraid it is helping because I am trying to make the article more NPOV (and thus less offensive to those who don't believe they speak on our behalf). It shouldn't be in the voice of Wikipedia that they celebrated the LGBT community, since it's not true. What is true is that they claimed to do so.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We must reflect how reliable sources discuss the event, not our own opinions about it. It seems like you believe that there not celebrating lgbtq community, but if thanks sources say they are, then that can be in Wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Sources may be equally biased. We relay facts, not sentiments. It is true that they claimed to celebrate the LGBT community; it is not true that they celebrated it. Their intent may have been in the right place, but that does not make it true.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree with me? I'm trying to reach consensus here. I don't see how it would be an issue to rephrase it and say they claimed or suggested to celebrate the LGBT community. The current wording is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. If a person or group self-identifies as celebrating something, I think that second-guessing them poses a neutrality problem. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Sources are allowed to be biased (WP:BIASED). We don't report facts/truth, we report what sources say (WP:TRUTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Precisely. They say they're celebrating the LGBT community. They're not celebrating the LGBT community.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Our shared aim is to ensure a neutral point of view applies, but the quality of LGBT+ related articles is measured just as any other. Consequently the requirement for the content of articles to not be original research but fully to rely on reliable sources applies. That said, it's a good thing to challenge any apparent bias of article tone, but to do this successfully please find some reliable sources to back up your point. At the moment, the point you have repeated above is an interpretation but not obvious fact, and thus original research, not something that has been stated in at least one reliable source.
By the way, a separate line of enquiry would be to assess the geographic circulation and possible political bias of sources, there may be an argument that there is a Wikipedia:Walled garden problem with sourcing, that itself can damage article quality and may be very hard to fix, unless notability can be challenged, but can at least be recognized. Thanks -- (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm tired. If I'm creating an article about an academic and a reviewer says his book is "intriguing", I don't say the book is intriguing in the voice of Wikipedia; I say the reviewer says the book is intriguing. Same difference here.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The parallel is flawed. The primary source is KATU, http://katu.com/station/contact, which seems to have no political agenda in making their report and seems to have no affiliation with the March.
Most of your apparent annoyance may be misplaced. The wording in the KATU article that was quoted above and introduced the word 'celebrated' was that of a KATU staff member, not just a regurgitated quote from the March organizers. The word 'celebrated' actually refers to the Fallen Angel Choir, not the March or its other participants, and one of their songs "It's a most wonderful time to be queer" seems okay to be described as a celebration of the LGBT community. You can find the song by searching YouTube for The Fallen Angel Choir. I would rather the article did not just reuse wording from the KATU article without being in quotes, so would have no problem in seeing 'celebration' dropped and the sentence rephrased, but the meaning would end up the same so it's not something I would get worked up about. -- (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe "celebrating" as opposed to celebrating?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I would rather just see it rephrased. It's poor for Wikipedia to be recycling newspaper text. If it were my student, I would have to have a chat about avoiding plagiarism in essays. I suggest you have a think about it and make a proposal on the article talk page. I'll be quite busy over the next few days, but will chip in. There's no hurry. -- (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights in South Africa[edit]

The article has NPOV problems, it seems to have been extensively edited by someone with an "activist" bias. Some attempts to clean it up have been made by editors who are not well versed in the subject. hence this appeal for an expert to go over it. Please see WT:WikiProject South Africa#LGBT rights in South Africa has serious problems for some earlier discussion. The bias is not always very apparent, it is sometimes in what is left unsaid rather than what is said in the article. The use of sources of doubtful reliability to support controversial claims is also a potential problem - such as blogs containing unproven allegations of official abuse by the former government. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Chechnya needs a major clean-up[edit]

LGBT rights in Chechnya needs a major clean-up. We could also cite:

Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Generating trans/nonbinary/intersex lists from Wikidata[edit]

There's a current discussion over at Women in Red regarding generating lists of trans, non-binary, and intersex people from Wikidata, which should be of interest to this project as well. Funcrunch (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at this AfD on an Norwegian LGBT association in Norway[edit]

Someone has nominated this article for deletion. [1]. It is based on primary sources it seems, but also, it's title should probably include Norway, saying National Association. . .could be any country. Editors want to keep it, and I would also if they move the page. Please offer comments if you've the time. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

and a reminder[edit]

This RfC needs comments regarding a section on LGBT rights on this article. here Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

LGBT in Australia[edit]

In Australia both Qantas and the Canberra Airport strongly support same-sex marriage. This support is covered on the Qantas page. This support has been removed from the Canberra Airport page. Refer Canberra Airport Talk Page. FYI CharlieDickins (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Femme article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Femme#Revert of the recent rewrite (a WP:Permalink is here). Which version is better? Should the article be merged? Please discuss at the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather then revert to a poorly resourced article it would have been better to ask for some definitions first. I have only became a user on Wikipedia to edit the Femme article as it was frankly absurd, made no sense, was offensive and counteracted the many years of work from people who have written specifically about Femmes and femme identity which were not even mentioned in the orginal article. If it os to be merged into Butch and Femme that is fine however all femme content should be places there as that is where the term comes from within an LGBT context. 26 citations were provided compared to 6/7. The specific pages that were cited discuss Femme as an identity itself and what that means. There will be overlap with Butch and Femme obviously but the citations address the "femme question" in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersistantFemmeSociety (talkcontribs) 02:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

resource for references[edit]

Hi all! I just wanted to mention that I am a member of the Quatrefoil Library (catalog), and would be happy to help people find references if they would like assistance. = paul2520 16:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Research for proposing a gender neutral principle for Wikipedia policies and guidelines[edit]

I started off a proposal for Wikimedia Commons to change all policies and help pages to being in a gender neutral style, see VP discussion. It's going well with a significant majority support in the first day.

I am thinking of creating an RFC here for exactly the same principle. Does anyone know if this has been discussed before and can supply a link? If not then I'll pretty much base it on the same idea on Commons. If you have any observations or tips to post here before I start drafting, that would be great. Thanks -- (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Could we not just call everyone "she"? Would that be too camp?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey, that does not address the issue of people that want to be gender neutral within our systems being ignored, let alone the viewpoint of some trans and genderqueer folks who feel they are unwelcome just by the use of easily avoidable binary language. Anyway, I'm just asking for research for past discussion, so these questions can be raised in the actual RFC if it happens. -- (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
She thinks it's fairly neutral, as nobody needs to know who she is!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the base for presenting evidence should be the Wikipedia article for "Singular they". If we did this, then that frames the conversation around adopting "singular they", instead of the more broad framing around a "gender neutral principle". Still, we have to have a basis for conversation, and I feel that inherent in the singular they is the more general idea of being gender neutral in other contexts. In looking over the sources cited in the "singular they" wiki article and elsewhere, here are some sources which themselves have been the subject of several other high-profile discussions in major media:
Based on this evidence, I think that the following are correct:
  1. Prestigious grammar organizations which make conservative statements on word choice have endorsed this use.
  2. Many conservative media organizations have issued statements to recognize and state intent to adopt the grammar organizations' position
  3. The Wikipedia community can adopt the singular they and gender-neutral language in general as a timely change without being radical or seeming premature
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Nice summary Blue. I'll take some time to absorb, but will draft some initial words we can talk around. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
If you'd like someone to review your draft, I'd be happy to share my time and proofreading experience. = paul2520 15:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The more the merrier. I'll add a link in this thread later. -- (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I support the development of an RfC on this issue. If you draft one in your userspace before posting it (which I recommend), feel free to ping me to take a look at it. Funcrunch (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What Paul2520 and Funcrunch wrote.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The singular they is something I strongly support in general (as seen on my userpage), so I strongly endorse the use of the singular they on Wikimedia's back pages. This also goes for Wikipedia itself, of course. I'll be reading through the Commons thread - thank you for sharing it here :) ~Mable (chat) 19:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have patched together a draft at User:Fæ/sandbox. Please go ahead and add or edit. I suggest we continue to discuss the practicalities of the RFC here. For example, it's not clear to me whether this is a policy in its own right, or might be okay if added to the manual of style. -- (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

For your information, there are some Wikipedians who don't like it when I try to edit an article about a game (such as chess, playing cards, or pool) so that GNL is used when referring to the players. They simply revert me and stick to generic he, rather than trying to re-word it so that it's clearer with GNL. But, how is GNL appropriate to this project talk page?? Usually, I put discussions on GNL at any of the article's talk page, the WP:MOS talk page, or the talk page of the WP:GNL essay. The GNL problem exists independent of LGBT people, so I don't see how it's appropriate for this talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
As this is a talk page, the proposed policy does not apply. At the moment this remains limited to policies, help pages and guidelines. However even this is a big step for the community. If agreed, there is a much stronger case for improving the manual of style for avoiding unnecessarily binary language in other spaces, such as article space or ways of extending the civility policy to helping talk pages be more welcoming for genderqueer editors, whether out or not, or specified neutral accounts. -- (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, misunderstood. This page is just to get the RFC started. The RFC, and its discussion, will be Wikipedia wide. -- (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, I just looked for sources on Gender-neutral language. OMG it needs an update. If there are any experts on this lurking around, can you please remove some of the awful or out of date links and find more up to date references? Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, I think User:Fæ/sandbox is ready. I'd like to move it as a section on this talk page later today. Any last minute concerns? Thanks -- (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think this talk page is the best home for an RfC of this scope? I feel that adopting gender-neutral language applies to more than just the LGBT+ community. Funcrunch (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It does, can you suggest a good talk page, perhaps an active noticeboard? Oddly enough, this talk page is much more active than the policy talk pages I can find. Maybe Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) which seems active enough and is generic. Remember that as an RfC it will pop up in the list of policy related RfCs, which is probably watched by a lot of people. -- (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest adding it as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for comment and getting a notice posted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, as it's likely to be controversial especially if people claim they didn't know about it. Funcrunch (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, it's been a long time since I did this stuff. I'll do exactly as you suggest. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is now live at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. -- (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been suggested at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Remarks_on_nonbinary_people that the RfC would be better moved to Village Pump (policy) as it might get better traffic, any views on that from folks here? Thanks -- (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather than moving, which feels disruptive, I have posted a notice at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_to_adopt_a_default_gender_neutral_style_for_policy.2C_guidelines_and_help_pages. -- (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Barry Manilow article - get to Good status? Also, coming out late article ideas[edit]

Barry Manilow officially came out as gay* yesterday. His article (which is attracting numerous edits, including the expected vandalism) is currently at "B" status. I think with a little work it could become a Good article. It was nominated as Good several years ago, but didn't make it. Anyway just in case anyone is up for the challenge... (*Yes, this was not much of a surprise to anyone, but I'd rather focus the discussion on improving the article.) Funcrunch (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Sounds like a good excuse for this :-) I'm not sure I want to take the lead, but I'm interested in helping, and learning what is involved with bringing an article to "good" status. = paul2520 18:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Tangentially, I think it might be interesting to have an article (perhaps just in list form) of notable LGBT+ people who came out late in life, say after age 65. Just off the top of my head, others in this category include Oliver Sacks and James Randi. Funcrunch (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
That would be interesting. Searching "coming out late in life book" reveals quite a few related results. = paul2520 20:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
"[E]xpected vandalism," indeed. Had to semiprotect it—which lapses tomorrow, so let me know if it gets bad again. El_C 11:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Some lesbians undergo numerous surgical operations to mimic males (so as to fit their gender identity) as transgender men."[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Man#Transgender text. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I support the text HeliumPearl wants is bad. It suggests that transgender people are gay people who wish they were straight, which clearly isn't true. Georgia guy (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Child Murderer of Interest (Brett Peter Cowan)[edit]

Curious as to why Brett Peter Cowan, the man who murdered 13 year-old Daniel Morcombe, is listed as a project of interest to LGBT studies. Almost seems like a bad joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.179.147 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a link in the article to a source that states Cowan said he was bisexual. Funcrunch (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
There's the double-edged sword, unfortunately. In the (legitimate) quest for visibility for the LGBTQ community, we also need to include the bad people (Roy Cohn?) as well, who are then identified as part of the community, as "projects of interest". We know Ted Bundy was straight but he's never positioned as a representative of straight male sexuality. Onwards and upwards. freshacconci (✉) 13:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove the Unreferenced BLPs box?[edit]

Shall we remove the "Unreferenced BLPs" box from the Project Page? It would be great to have a list of bios that need references, but the DASHbot has been inactive since 2013. SeMelmoth (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Transgender sex worker[edit]

Hi there! I recently overhauled much of the Transgender sex worker page as a part of a course that used a WikiEducation project. One thing that I noticed while editing it was that it was not connected to any WikiProjects! I would love to have y'all take a look at it and add it to the project! Please let me know if you have any feedback or suggested changes. Brookeenglish (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Brookeenglish, it was also created (by Kittyfurman11) as part of an education course (WP:Student editing). My guess is that it will be edited as part of such courses in the future as well. I hope that you stuck to good sourcing, and to what the sources state; by this latter bit, I mean no WP:Original research/WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22 Reborn! This is my second WikiEducation project that I have worked on and I have been very vigilant about avoiding original research. My professor and other students from my class have been reviewing it throughout the semester to make sure that I am staying on top of that. One issue that this article had when I began editing it was tagged with having multiple issues, one of which was essay-like. I paid very close attention to the tone of the article as well as avoiding drawing conclusions from other sources. If you think that at some point in the article I did do original research or did not do an effective job of making it less essay-like I would be happy to discuss any changes that you suggest. I would love to hear any other feedback that you have on the article as well as I plan to submit it for Good article status soon. Brookeenglish (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jamie Drew Weinand[edit]

There is a discussion about the use of "improvement tags" at Talk:Jamie Drew Weinand.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Funcrunch might be especially interested.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the history of this article gives me a headache (draft rejected four times at AfC, then created in mainspace by a new account, and now an anon and another new account are posting links to the article and photo in numerous places). I don't think I want to get involved right now. Funcrunch (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Article appears to be important contribution to transgender medicine and is well-researched. I have been making small, minor edits throughout to add more sources to original article, but I think it looks good overall and can continue to be re-edited and improved. I am adding secondary sources tonight and will continue to do so. Transgendermedicine (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)TransgenderMedicine
adding more external references to Binding Health Project, which seems very significant. Article is important and fills a need. WikipedianCitizen (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)WikipedianCitizen
I decided to jump into the fray after all. The primary claim made in this article is looking very dubious to me. I'd appreciate more eyes on the talk page discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Update: This article has now been nominated for deletion. Funcrunch (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Chechnya[edit]

While we have LGBT rights in Chechnya, maybe this deserves an article of its own?

There may be more RS in Russian. We could try to nominate it for "In The News" on the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, we need a better RS than the Daily Mail in the main article's Human rights section. El_C 23:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. I took two RS from LGBT rights in Chechnya (which is a horror show and needs a major clean-up asap!!).Zigzig20s (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── New article:

I've updated Joyce Anelay, Baroness Anelay of St Johns. Are there more reactions? I'm looking for a statement from Randy W. Berry but I can't find one. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Genderqueer page move under discussion[edit]

There is a renewed discussion on the Genderqueer page over whether to move the title to Non-binary. Funcrunch (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing biographies of nonbinary, trans and intersex people[edit]

Good news everyone, the live list of missing biographies is now available under WikiProject LGBT studies. This relies on Listeria to run a daily check using Wikidata for which biographic articles exist on other Wikipedias, but not on the English Wikipedia for people that have been tagged on Wikidata as a nonbinary, trans or intersex person. This is a great way to discover where people might have been identified incorrectly, or perhaps without sufficient evidence in reliable sources, as well as a useful list to support article creation by individuals or at editathons. With our annual round of Wiki Loves Pride and renewed interest in LGBT+ projects that follows, please keep this handy list in mind, if only as an example to get creative generating further LGBT+ specific lists.

The previous discussions that created this list can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Trans women, itself the result of discussions we had at m:WMCON2017 this month. Thanks to everyone who helped discuss the list and options after my question at WiR, and special thanks to Tagishsimon for originally investigating the Wikidata SPARQL that drives the list.

I aim to continue to ponder refinements, and would be delighted to see more discussion here about them. For example the benefit of splitting the list, so that people interested, say, in just genderqueer articles can work on that list, and the possibility of recasting the list from the perspective of other language Wikipedias.

P.S. yes, the Athens Boys Choir does appear to be a performance group of two transgender people, not a mis-categorized Boys' choir. -- (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This looks good. I also like Category:Women in Red redlink lists and wonder if a similar category for LGBTI+ redlink lists would work here. Trankuility (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the list. And Trankuility, I think a category is a good idea, as I could see potential for several lists, and I'm aware you have concerns about cisgender intersex people being lumped in with trans folks. Funcrunch (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned in previous discussions, I have now broken down the table, so it is three separate reports on further subpages. This will make it easier for people to focus on their special interest, or to spot errors. I feel this is slightly more respectful than just lumping all trans and nonbinary people in a big list of 'others'. I have added the extra Wikidata entry of Sex or gender not in Wikidata, but available on Wikipedia (Q26220006) in the last report, which may not be appropriate, however there are no instances against that value at the moment. Thanks -- (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@: Regarding the section title "Genderqueer or Intersex people", there is a relevant discussion on the Genderqueer talk page regarding using that word vs non-binary to categorize people. Also I am concerned about including cisgender intersex people in this list, per my comment above. I appreciate your work on this regardless; I just want to be as accurate and respectful as possible. Funcrunch (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw the discussion. As the queries are based on Wikidata, I'm reusing the language from Wikidata but I'm not wedded to that approach. However while this Wikipedia uses 'genderqueer' as the article name, we probably should take that as the current consensus view, even if it is contentious, otherwise were are propagating the same debate into all these other areas. I think it's very easy to add synonyms in Wikidata, if these are synonyms, but I'm not that familiar with how all that stuff works.
with regard to intersex, I'm happy to separate this report onto its own page if that is more respectful an approach.  Done -- (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Your reasoning makes sense re genderqueer, and thank you re intersex. (Though I defer to Trankuility's expertise on the latter subject.) Funcrunch (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing German Wikipedia articles[edit]

As an experiment with Freddy2001, I have created the same lists for the German Wikipedia. These are draft, and will be relocated depending on where this would make a good project report. The lists are much longer there! If anyone is comfortable discussing and working on the German articles, it would be an idea to ping Freddy2001 on the German Wikipedia. Thanks -- (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing biographies of LGBQ people[edit]

This has now been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Missing biographies of LGBQ people.

Wikidata is only as good as the way terms are used across all Wikipedias, so there may be inconsistency about how Wikidata labels such as "Queer" and "Gay" are applied to non-English biographies. -- (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Gay writers on a user talkpage[edit]

Hello. I have noticed that there is Category:Gay writers on User talk:86.23.18.214. Could an admin please remove it?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 00:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Experimental LGBT+ Wikidata reports[edit]

After creating the above tables of missing biographies, I have tried playing around with interesting SPARQL queries to see how Wikidata reports might help with future LGBT+ editathons or projects. I would appreciate any feedback on the tables below. Some with poor results show how the Wikidata records, or our project labeling using Wikidata, might become part of live reports to drive editathons, for example to generate maps of LGBT+ history, like historic sites of gay history around Europe, or LGBT+ culture, such as a live map of gay pubs in London with Wikipedia articles. Click on the bottom left of the report to see the SPARQL code.

  1. Map LGBT Pride Parades listed by country and where wiki sites have entries.
  2. LGBT+ people who died of unnatural causes sorted in order of how many wiki sites have entries for them. Some have articles about their death, but are not about them.
  3. Authors found by searching for books which have topics like queer studies or a genre of LGBT
  4. Map of LGBT historic places
  5. Missing LGBT+ rights activists in English, Spanish and German

Thanks -- (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

An article "Gay Left"[edit]

The article "Gay Left" is currently nominated for deletion, but the AfD discussion is heading toward the "keep" territory. The article may need some cleanup. --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people[edit]

Users who watch this page may be interested in this RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline[edit]

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pro-marriage movement[edit]

Pro-marriage movement was recently created by an editor who has added similar content with many of the same sources to other LGBT-related articles. As far as I can tell, this article depends on WP:SYNTH. I'm not even sure if there is such a thing as "Pro-marriage movement" or why it would be used as euphemism for opposition to same-sex marriage. A few more eyes on this would be helpful.- MrX 12:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I was AfDing it as you wrote this. Discussion is here. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"Drag mother", "drag daughter"[edit]

Alaska Thunderfuck uses the terms "drag mother" and "drag daughter" without explaining them. I've raised the question on the talk page there:

What do "drag mother" and "drag daughter" mean? It's probably obvious to people in or close to the drag and other trans communities, but it's clear as mud to most readers.
The article needs definitions.

My talk page comment goes into further detail; please see there for details. I'm not a member of the LGBT+ community (rather, a cis het ally), and I don't consider myself qualified to fix this.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"SHOTS FIRED AS IRAN ARRESTS OVER 30 GAY MEN IN VIOLENT RAID"[edit]

Hello. Is anyone able to find more information about this to create a separate article as we did for the Chechen camps please?

I have added a line to LGBT rights in Iran, but a separate article may be required. Let me know what you think. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that a separate article would be appropriate at this point. RivertorchFIREWATER 09:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested on LGBT protests against Trump[edit]

Please comment in section #Merge? LGBT protests against Donald Trump above, which was attached to a prior thread. — JFG talk 21:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. I was considering doing something similar so the discussion wasn't lost in the shuffle. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 shooting of Paris police officers[edit]

The dead police officer was a gay rights activist. (Blaise, Lillia (April 21, 2017). "Xavier Jugelé, 37, Officer Killed in Paris, Was Defender of Gay Rights". The New York Times. Retrieved April 22, 2017.) Should we add the WikiProject tag to its talkpage?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not? It simply says that the article is of interest to the WikiProject. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The content was redacted and dismissed as "irrelevant", despite The New York Times and The Guardian having published whole articles about it. I left a note on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Some members of this WikiProject may want to say on the article talkpage whether they think it should be restored or not. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Any views on this comment by WWGB after I added a list of sources on the discussion page?: Perhaps you should step aside if your personal persuasions affect your editing preferences.

I may be misreading it, so other viewpoints would be nice. From the perspective of someone trying to help by pointing out sources, it seems hostile and ad hominem. It is especially odd, as nothing has been mentioned there about whether I am personally LGBT+ or not. In fact, on reflection, I find someone using "personal persuasions" as a reason to stop me expressing any viewpoint on a discussion page creepy, making it read as if they have negative views about what they are imagining about me and my "persuasions". -- (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Bearcat: What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Had there been evidence that his work as a gay rights activist was somehow connected to the reasons for the shooting, then I'd consider it relevant to our project. Similarly, the Oakland warehouse party fire last year wasn't of any special relevance to our project just because a couple of transgender people happened to be present at the event — if LGBT isn't baked right into the substance of what's important about the event, it doesn't become relevant to this project just because there happened to be one or two LGBT people there. LGBT people can be anywhere at any time, including the scenes of tragic events — but if a bridge collapsed, we wouldn't flag it as relevant to the LGBT project just because one of the people who died when their car plunged in the river happened to be a lesbian, unless there were evidence that somebody blew the bridge up because there was a lesbian on it.
It's perfectly reasonable for a small amount of information about his life, including his LGBT work, to be mentioned in the article body, but it's far too minor an aspect of the event to warrant flagging the whole shebang a topic of LGBT interest. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
1) Shouldn't reliable third-party sources be our lodestar here? There are entire articles about his being openly gay, and a member of the French LGBT police organization. He was also the only policeman who was killed during the attack. Not just some guy who happened to be there. 2) How do we deal with editors who bring up our "persuasions"? It's just a strange thing to say.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
(1) Again, if his LGBTness had been the reason for the shooting, then it would be relevant to the LGBT project. But what it is, is just background information on a person whose sexuality was completely independent of his death — and so there's no relevant reason to tag it with {{WikiProject LGBT}}, because his sexuality is not central to the reason why an article exists about the shooting. Had the shooter specifically gone out of his way to specifically target Jugelé because Jugelé was gay, then it would be a candidate for the Wikiproject tag — but as it is, all we've got is that the one cop who happened to be unlucky enough to get shot happened to be gay. And that's not a reason why we would need to pay it any special LGBT-oriented attention at the WikiProject level, because the fact that it happened to be a gay cop rather than a straight cop is just random blind chance that isn't central to the story.
(2) Your question here was about whether it warranted the WikiProject tag or not, so that's what I was addressing. People's rationales, weird though they may be, in an edit dispute over whether the content about his LGBTness belonged in the article at all are not relevant to the question of whether the project tag is warranted or not — if I have something to contribute on that latter question, I'll do it in that discussion on that talk page rather than here. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No actually, my "What do you think?" was about Fae's comment. Sorry about the confusion. Also, it sounds like you only want us to add WP:LGBT Studies to articles about "hate crimes". I disagree, especially when the only casualty was a gay man. (Although you at least agree that the article should include RS-backed content about his gay activism!)Zigzig20s (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

With regard to what we add the WikiProject LGBT studies category to, I'd put it simply as any article with relevant LGBT+ interest to monitor and maintain. In this case, though the original event has no special LGBT+ interest, the fact that there has been significant press interest in the murdered policeman not just being gay, but an active proponent of FLAG, the French LGBT police group, and sufficiently well known for being active on protests to be called an "LGBT activist", changes this so that article is one worth us monitoring and helping with. If nothing else, we can help with finding reliable sources if this aspect of the story evolves, such as if there are posthumous awards for Jugelé, or more relevant information from obituaries. This type of information may stay minimal in the article, however it is encyclopaedic to include some context for the impact of violent events like these on the victims, families and colleagues, whether they happen to be identified as LGBT+ or not. -- (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

RM discussion at Talk:Homosexuality and the Catholic Church[edit]

There is another RM discussion after a move from "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" to "Homosexuality and the Catholic Church". I invite you to improve the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Gender binary[edit]

I presume this is on watchlists, but I'm not sure about the last few edits, including the adding of cn tags and then quickly deleting. Doug Weller talk 05:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching. Recent editing history of a particular editor shows a fair number of questionable edits, including on pages that fall under discretionary sanctions. Already warned and blocked once, but not sure if further action is possible or advisable at this time. Funcrunch (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)